IGF’s knowledge unlocked: AI-driven insights for our digital future | IGF 2023 side event

Markus Kummer

The initial stages of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) primarily focused on connectivity and internet access, with no consideration given to artificial intelligence (AI). During that time, the main concerns revolved around ensuring that people had access to the internet and were able to connect. However, as time went on, the landscape changed significantly with the advent of apps, video streaming, smartphones, and other technological advancements facilitated by AI. These developments highlight the growing importance of AI in shaping the digital world.

Despite the progress made in connecting people to the internet, challenges still exist in bringing the last billion individuals online. The assumption was that the industry would take the lead in connecting this population, but it has proven to be a difficult task. One of the major hurdles in this endeavor is language and cultural diversity. The remaining individuals who are not yet connected to the internet predominantly come from non-English speaking countries. Overcoming these linguistic and cultural barriers is essential to ensure universal access to the internet.

The Tunis agenda, a significant document related to Internet governance, outlined a broader definition of the concept beyond just the management of the Domain Name System (DNS) and internet protocol resources. It acknowledged that Internet governance encompassed a range of issues concerning the use and abuse of the internet. This expanded understanding remains relevant and continues to guide discussions and decision-making in the field.

The IGF has accumulated an immense amount of data over the years. It has been suggested that this data should be mined for valuable insights. In 2011, Vint Cerf, one of the founding fathers of the internet, highlighted the importance of data mining during the Nairobi IGF. Data mining involves extracting meaningful information and patterns from extensive datasets. Given the rich and diverse dataset available within the IGF, there is the potential to uncover valuable insights that can inform future policies and strategies around internet governance.

AI applications can play a crucial role in mining and categorizing the vast amount of data accumulated through the IGF. Markus Kummer, a prominent figure in internet governance, has mentioned the publication of a book summarizing the knowledge generated through the IGF. This highlights the challenge of effectively mining and utilizing the wealth of information available. By leveraging AI tools, the process of data mining and categorization can be significantly enhanced, allowing for more efficient and accurate analysis of the vast dataset.

In conclusion, while AI was not initially considered during the early stages of the IGF, its importance has become increasingly significant with the evolution of the digital landscape. Challenges persist in connecting the last billion individuals to the internet, particularly in dealing with language and cultural diversity. The broader definition of internet governance outlined in the Tunis agenda remains valid and continues to shape discussions within the field. The immense data accumulated through the IGF presents an opportunity for valuable insights when mined and analyzed effectively, with AI applications serving as useful tools in this process.

Jovan Kurbalija

The importance of preserving the knowledge generated during Internet Governance Forum (IGF) sessions was emphasised. This knowledge has the potential to assist and benefit communities affected by digitalisation issues. The Diplo Foundation, in collaboration with Markus Kummer, has been documenting IGF sessions since 2006. To facilitate this process, AI technology is employed, enabling the creation of summaries, reports, and daily digests. The AI system has the capability to codify and translate the arguments presented during sessions, resulting in the development of a comprehensive knowledge graph.

The knowledge database generated from IGF discussions is considered a public good that belongs to all stakeholders. However, it was noted that this valuable resource is currently underutilised. Therefore, there is a collective call for the initiation and promotion of the IGF knowledge database, aiming to fully harness its potential benefits.

While there are extensive discussions about the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on humanity, the need to explore AI as a practical tool and gain a comprehensive understanding of its functionalities was recognised. It was suggested that the Internet Governance (IG) community should focus on delving into the practical aspects of AI, rather than mere speculation about its potential impacts.

To enhance knowledge sharing and coherence, it was proposed that an AI tool be developed to connect and compare discussions across various IGF sessions. This tool would help identify commonalities, link related topics, and facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.

The use of AI for the session report system was viewed positively, as it allows experts to collaborate with AI technology to generate interactive reports. These reports include detailed breakdowns per speaker, narrative summaries, and discussion points, as well as information regarding speech length and speed. The AI system continuously learns and improves through the integration of corrective feedback.

The IGF has evolved into a knowledge base that holds significant influence over Internet-related organizations. It serves as a platform for learning, capacity building, and the provision of global resources. Notably, the IGF’s culture of respect and engagement, which fosters a listening culture and promotes the acceptance of diverse opinions, was highly appreciated. There was a suggestion to utilize AI and human expertise to propagate this culture among younger generations, strengthening the overall impact and sustainability of the IGF’s mission.

In conclusion, the extended summary highlights the importance of preserving knowledge generated during IGF sessions and emphasizes the collaborative efforts between the Diplo Foundation and AI technology in documenting and summarizing these sessions. It underlines the call for the initiation and utilization of the IGF knowledge database, as well as the need to explore the practical aspects of AI. The potential benefits of an AI tool to link and compare discussions across various sessions are recognized. The positive perspective towards utilizing AI for the session report system is noted, along with the IGF’s influence as a knowledge base and its culture of respect and engagement.

Sorina Teleanu

The International Governance Forum (IGF) held discussions on the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in society, with a focus on its benefits rather than its potential to replace humans. The sentiment expressed during the discussions was positive.

Speakers at the IGF emphasized the need to approach AI in a practical manner and avoid cliches. They encouraged participants to explore how AI actually works, rather than focusing solely on its ‘magic’. This proactive stance aims to deepen understanding and harness the full potential of AI.

There was a consensus among the speakers that AI is not detrimental to jobs, but rather a tool to assist humans. They dismissed the idea of AI taking over human jobs in the near future and highlighted the importance of AI supporting and enhancing human capabilities.

One significant concern raised at the IGF was the underutilization of the valuable information produced. While the forum generates a wealth of knowledge, it was acknowledged that much of it remains unused or unexplored. This raises questions about the effectiveness of disseminating and utilizing the knowledge generated by the IGF.

The speakers also stressed the potential of technology in maximizing the knowledge acquired by the IGF over the years. They emphasized the need to leverage technology to track the evolution of discussions and enhance understanding of topics such as the digital divide. By harnessing technology, the wealth of knowledge accumulated by the IGF can be effectively utilized to contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Additionally, there was an emphasis on the need to move the discussions forward and avoid repetition. The speakers highlighted technology as a means to facilitate progress, avoid cliches, and promote innovation in governance and societal debates. Using technology as a starting point for discussions can provide an overview of previous debates and lay the groundwork for more in-depth and constructive conversations.

In conclusion, the discussions at the IGF established that AI will bring about benefits without replacing humans. The importance of approaching AI in a practical manner, avoiding cliches, and harnessing technology to maximize the utilization of knowledge were key takeaways. Moving forward, the IGF aims to leverage technology to advance governance and effectively address societal challenges.

Wim Degezelle

During discussions about Internet Governance Forum (IGF) activities, it was identified that there is a need to improve the codification and collection of knowledge. The participants emphasised the importance of moving beyond mere discussions and working towards tangible outputs. This indicates a desire to generate concrete reports and outcomes from IGF discussions.

Another point raised was the need for better coordination and consolidation of similar discussions that take place at different workshops within the IGF. It was observed that multiple sessions on internet fragmentation often resulted in repeated messages about collaborative work, albeit using different phrasing. The crowded schedule of IGF sessions was identified as a challenge, making it difficult to establish links to previous discussions from past years or sessions. Therefore, participants suggested that better coordination and consolidation of similar discussions would improve efficiency and reduce redundancy within the IGF.

Participants also acknowledged the potential role of AI and other technologies in enhancing knowledge management. It was noted that during meetings, a specific tool was able to break down participants’ words into distinct arguments and label key topics. Additionally, the tool was capable of associating relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with the discussions. This demonstrates how AI and technology can help categorise and link discussions, facilitating better knowledge management within the IGF.

Moreover, there was a shared positive sentiment towards the potential of the tool to compare and link discussions from different sessions. Participants expressed a desire for the tool to identify common themes across multiple sessions and suggest comparative analysis. This highlights the potential for AI and technology to further enhance knowledge management within IGF by providing a comprehensive and comparative understanding of discussions.

In conclusion, the discussions surrounding knowledge codification and collection within IGF activities stressed the need for tangible outputs and better coordination of similar discussions. Furthermore, the value of AI and other technologies in categorising, linking, and enhancing knowledge was recognised. The potential for these technologies to compare and link discussions from various sessions was also highlighted. Overall, this analysis provides insights into improving knowledge management within the context of IGF.

Audience

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has become a vital platform, enabling stakeholders to participate and contribute to policy discussions related to the internet. This inclusive forum allows dialogue and collaboration among governments, non-governmental organizations, businesses, academic institutions, and individuals interested in shaping the internet’s future.

One key aspect that sets the IGF apart is its ability to influence internet-related organizations. Stakeholders have found the IGF to be an important channel for contributing to policy development and decision-making processes. This influence has been significant, shaping the strategies and actions of internet governance entities.

The IGF’s positive impact is reinforced by its evolution and longevity, surpassing initial expectations. It was originally anticipated that the IGF would only last for a limited period, but its resilience and continued success prove its value. The IGF is now regarded as a model worth emulating, leading to the establishment of similar forums worldwide and the contribution of resources from various regions, strengthening global internet governance.

Another significant aspect of the IGF is its role in promoting global collaboration and discussion. The forum provides a platform for stakeholders to engage in fruitful dialogue, allowing for agreement and disagreement. Through open exchanges and constructive debates, the IGF facilitates consensus building, shaping policies that impact internet governance. Additionally, the IGF’s influence extends beyond its immediate activities and impacts other internet governance organizations operating in related domains.

In conclusion, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has become a valuable knowledge base and a platform for global collaboration and discussion. Its importance lies in bringing together diverse stakeholders, providing opportunities for active participation, and influencing internet-related organizations worldwide. The continued success and growth of the IGF over the past two decades highlight the need for its continuation and evolution in the future.

Anja Gengo

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is an extensive database that contains a vast collection of reports, records, and documents on digital inclusion. For the past 18 years, the IGF has been actively producing various types of reports and documents, which serve as significant indicators of the current state of affairs and future directions in the field. This highlights the IGF’s commitment to remaining up-to-date and providing valuable insights into the digital inclusion landscape.

One argument presented is that artificial intelligence (AI) can be a valuable tool in managing the IGF’s massive database, provided that it is a trusted system. AI has the ability to process data quickly and yield accurate results, thereby enhancing the IGF’s data processing capabilities and achieving a higher level of inclusion in its processes.

Furthermore, there is a strong emphasis on the importance of identifying and including underrepresented and marginalized groups in the IGF processes. The IGF Secretariat acknowledges the lack of participation from certain countries, disciplines, and target groups and is making efforts to map these missing entities and onboard them. This commitment underlines the IGF’s dedication to promoting inclusivity and reducing inequalities in the digital space.

Anja Gengo, an observer, is impressed by the examination of speech length and speed in the discussions. This analysis provides insights into communication dynamics and has the potential to improve the effectiveness of discussions during IGF events. Additionally, Gengo is excited about a mini competition, the outcome of which is eagerly anticipated.

Overall, the analysis of the IGF’s database and its efforts towards inclusion are deemed highly valuable for the IGF’s long-term utility. It not only enhances decision-making but also supports the IGF in effectively addressing the challenges and opportunities within the digital inclusion landscape.

Jovan Kurbalija:
Okay, I guess you can hear me now. Good, great to see you and you’re in unique position and it’s been on the perils of all who are going to miss this session, 5,000 people, because this is a special session. And this session is special because it speaks about something which is very concrete and also very powerful. It speaks about knowledge that has been developed over the last 18 plus years in the IGF community. Think just about all of the sessions discussion at this IGF, what was said, questions that were made, and what knowledge each of us gathered from it. Well I’m writing books and I have a few books and I here and there publish them and some people got interested in them, some not. And this is the way of preserving this knowledge. But generally speaking, this knowledge is not codified and made useful for our discussion, not only of us here. That’s important, but people outside IGF community who are impacted by what is discussed here or who may need to know more on the digitalization and issues. Now Diplo, together with Markus Kummer, who is today with us, who is, for those of you who are not aware, who is one of the real fathers of the Internet Governance Forum. There are so many fathers, you know, the successes have many fathers, but he created the first IGF and we started 2006 with the first reporting from IGF, a remote participation in the first reporting. Therefore we have now 18 years of the reporting from the IGF, which is very powerful knowledge base. Now from this IGF we are reporting as well. So you can get, for almost any session, you can get, including this session, you can get a few things. You can get a summary report written by experts, you can get a report written by AI, drafted by artificial intelligence, and you can have also daily IGF. You know how it is. First day you try to follow the sessions and you’re enthusiastic that you will grasp what’s going on. At least my experience after the first day I realized that it’s not impossible and you start navigating the lunch areas and the bar areas and connecting, which is great. I think this is a great purpose of IGF. But what we do every day, based on this reporting, we create IGF daily. There is just IGF daily from yesterday, which have a summary of discussions and top day picks. Therefore, with the help of AI system and our experts, we create a summary of what was discussed the previous day. Now we were very critical today because there are so many repetitions, you know. Technology will give opportunities but also make risks, but also some new insights and ideas. So there is that interplay between repeating, repeating, repeating, but also having some new insights. Now what you can also consult here and you can see on this website, I’m introducing this way functionally because this is the way that you understand what we are basically discussing when it comes to the AI. And here is, for example, I know one interesting session, I’m sorry, but I’ll find it here. It was climate, I think, one of the critical, probably I’ll miss, where you have the summary of the session and you have also indication of what was said and how the discussion space was framed. So you can have it and this is done by artificial intelligence. As we discussed, this session is also codified and translated by artificial intelligence and you can see the main points from discussion. You can see, for example, what was, let’s see, at least one session that I was in, which is bottom-up AI. You can see that there is a report from the session and there is a knowledge graph. How arguments which Sorina, who is here, and I made relate to each other around topics, around issues. Therefore you can finish this meeting as one big knowledge graph where you can see how discussion in this session relates to some other session. This is a huge, powerful knowledge database which is completely unused and it is a public good. It belongs to all of us. And this session aims to initiate this discussion together with our panelists, with Marcus and colleagues from IGF Secretariat and Anja and, of course, Sorina. And Marcus, when you started IGF, did you plan to make this big AI system or not? Just a few suggestions and a few reflections from your side and then we’ll move to Anja.

Markus Kummer:
Well, AI was not a hot issue then. There were other issues but let’s not forget, 20 years ago, the internet was not the same as it is now. I do remember when we celebrated the first billion internet users, first billion online, but I think it was 2005 or so. Now we have more, around six billion internet users, so just the sheer number, the sheer, is a huge difference. But 2005, we didn’t have video streaming, we didn’t have Skype, there was no Netflix, there was no YouTube. All these things have added and the apps didn’t exist, there are no smartphones, so it was a totally different environment. But what was already clear, the people, the internet users, cared very much about the internet and obviously access to the internet was still a number one priority but connectivity remains an important issue. I do remember when, I think it was 2008 or so, we started thinking about bringing more people online and, well, access was always a big issue but 2008, it was at the meeting in Hyderabad, somebody said, actually, the biggest challenge will be not the next billion people but the last billion people, to bring the last billion online because the next billions will come almost automatically, industry will do it and it has happened that way, indeed, we have now six billion people online but the last billion, that will be a challenge and obviously, it was also mentioned in today’s session on the way towards the GDC, there are digital issues but there are also analog issues and I think the languages remain an analog issue. To be really inclusive, I think the internet must become more multilingual. It’s obvious that the remaining people who are not online yet, they don’t come from the English-speaking world, they come from the countries with different languages and changes will happen. The more people that come online, they will come from different culture, bring different languages, different cultural values and that will also have an impact on the internet but back to your question, no, we didn’t think about AI, we didn’t also, we didn’t really know what to expect. We just realized there was a hunger for having these discussions and that manifested itself before, this is during the working group on internet governance when we held regular consultation, there was a clear appetite to have these discussions on issues surrounding the internet and also, then we had Tunis and the Tunis agenda remains very valid and there were those who thought internet governance was just about naming and addressing but the Tunis agenda clearly spells out internet governance is more than naming and addressing, more than the DNS and the allocation of internet protocol resources and it says the internet governance also is about issues relating to the use and abuse of the internet and that is a definition that is very broad indeed and that also obviously includes AI.

Jovan Kurbalija:
Marcus, one thing which you mentioned and I think is critical also for the future of AI is that there are so-called unintended consequences. You just start moving and you don’t know where we land and you end up with a great event and if you don’t mind, that could be a nice segue and what you mentioned, different cultural contexts, recently we did analysis of, for example, Ubuntu philosophy, African philosophy, which is not codified to the large extent but it should and can influence AI developments. I don’t know if you had something else to conclude and then we pass to Anya, Sorina and then to basically…

Markus Kummer:
Pass on, yes.

Jovan Kurbalija:
Good. Anya, you were in the Secretariat, you were sort of making sure that everything works and it’s great, great work behind the scenes, very often not noticeable but how do you see this knowledge dimension of this huge pool which we are trying at Diplo to activate somehow, how does it look from the perspective of the Secretariat?

Anja Gengo:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Jovan, and also to Sorina, thank you for organizing this session and continuously supporting the IGF. First of all, thank you for your kind words. I hope you’ll share Jovan’s words. I will not repeat again all this what I said. I hope you could hear me but if needed, I will. In any case, just a big thank you, of course, to the organizers and for the kind words. I hope that you shared the feedback as Jovan so far, that you’re enjoying the IGF and that the program-wise, technically-wise as well, fits your requirements to feel comfortable to navigate this very robust agenda. I fully agree with, of course, Marcus and Jovan both said, the IGF is just one big database of everything and everyone, to say it in a very blunt manner. If you look at the past 18 years of the IGF, and we internally, of course, have access to all its archives, then it’s a lot of terabytes of data of different kinds of reports, documents that have been produced so far, a lot of just records of participation of the world through the IGF and its multi-stakeholder model. For us, those are precious resources because they are very important indicators of the status quo, but they’re also excellent navigators of where we want to go in the future, given the fact that digital inclusion is at the core of the IGF. Numbers, for example, are important. If you look at the reports on statistics of the participation by country, by different profiles, then it gives you a very nice picture on who’s participating, but most importantly, who are we leaving behind, and where do we need to concentrate our, for example, capacity development efforts to ensure that everyone’s onboarded with us. All those analysis are done to a good extent by a very small team of the IGF Secretariat manually. It’s very good that we are now living in a phase of this rapid AI development, where the AI, at least certain segments of it, if maneuvered, if in good hands, can be a trusted tool to deal with this big database and to ensure that the data are processed in a quicker way and to give you accurate result that you want to achieve. So we certainly welcome the involvement of these systems, as long as they are trusted systems, in the IGF, as we are seeing it as a great help to improve the process, first of all, but especially to reach the inclusion level that we are aiming for years. And unfortunately, it’s still very challenging, regardless of the fact that, of course, we have a big portion of the world being unconnected. Good portion of the world is connected, and that meaningfully connected world is still not active participant in the IGF processes. So the Secretariat is aware of that. We work on that. We map basically through a multilayered dimension of the stakeholder community who is missing. So we’re looking at particularly certain countries that are missing, certain disciplines that are missing, target groups, for example. We’re looking who are the marginalized groups across communities. And you can imagine the complexity there. Not every country, every community shares the challenges, resources, capacity. So that’s the complexity, and a small team in Geneva of four or five persons working at the Secretariat certainly can’t manage that in a quick way. So we do welcome these types of support into the IGF system, and I think it would also make the participation of the just regular participants in the IGF’s intersessional work and the annual meeting much more quicker and more comfortable and meaningful for everyone.

Jovan Kurbalija:
Thank you, Anja. One point which came from your reflection is, if you count, I think counted something like 30 sessions discussing AI. And there is a hell of a lot of excitement. Everybody likes to become expert on AI. And what we are noticing, a high level of cliches. Whatever cliche is that AI is endangering humanity, will kill us all in a few years, to all the cliches. But what is one point is, and what always motivates us, at least as a Diplo, is that we have to walk to talk. Not only to talk about AI, but also to use AI as a practical tool. And it’s a bit, I expected a fuller room, but it seems people like magic, talk about magic of AI, but not necessarily to see how it works and how it operates. And what you’re doing in the Secretariat with very limited resources is you’re trying to walk the talk. And I think there is a need in the IG community more to walk the talk. To look under the bonnet and see what’s going on, what are neural networks, how TCPIP functions, how you do that. It will make much more serious discussion. Here is our next speaker, Serena, who is, as you know, a person who walks the talks on so many issues. And she’s probably a person who has the lowest tolerance for any sort of cliches. Sometimes, although I’m very careful about cliches, but sometimes I write something and Serena just call me from the other office, what do you mean? It’s another cliche. It’s a bit tolerant, a bit, you know, here and there I may use a cliche. Sorina, how we can walk the talk, what Anja started and…

Sorina Teleanu:
Well, maybe asking how do we avoid going too much into that. But beyond that, I don’t think there is a way to stop people using cliches at the IG or any other digital policy discussion. I have a challenge with the mics. Apologies. Technology is not helping us. I think the idea is to use technology for what it’s best at. Helping us, not replacing us. As Jovan was saying, there’s a lot of talk these days about how AI is going to destroy everything, take our jobs. Well, we’ve had a bit of fun over the past few days with our reporting. And I think I can say after two days that AI is not going to take my job anytime soon. But beyond that, look at the IGF. So we’re talking about how to make use of technology to show the wealth of knowledge that the IGF has acquired over the years. This is the 18th annual meeting. How many of you have read the… What’s the most recent annual report? Messages, let’s call it like that. How many of you have read IGF messages for the past, let’s say, three years?

Jovan Kurbalija:
But be frank.

Sorina Teleanu:
But be frank. Wow. We should give you an award or something. Excellent. And beyond those three years, have you read all IGF messages? Okay. Well done. The point is there’s so much produced every year. We have recordings from every single session. We have session reports. We have the messages. We have the annual report. We have policy network reports. We have best practice forum reports, outcome documents of the parliamentary track, youth dialogue reports. There’s so much happening, but we produce them every year, and then we kind of leave them there. Can we try to unpack a bit all this knowledge and see how the discussion on, for instance, digital divide evolved from 18 years ago when we started the IGF to now? How can we actually take advantage of everything that’s being discussed here at the IGF to move the debate forward instead of kind of repeating the same things all over again? And we think technology can help here, can give us like a starting point. Okay. I want to have another session. I’m speaking too fast. On the digital divide, this is what has been discussed about the digital divide at the IGF in the previous 18 years. Let’s see how we take this forward and stop saying the same things all over again. I’m trying to respond to Jovan’s question about how to avoid cliches. Maybe yes, we can use technology for that. Be a bit more innovative, be a bit more forward-looking into how we’re debating these things, starting from, yeah, looking at what has been said before and taking, again, taking it forward instead of repeating the same points. So our hope is that technology is going to help us a bit in that direction. And I think it’s also very timely in these current debates about, you know, digital cooperation forum possibly or not, and whether we need something new or not, again, showing the wealth of knowledge that the IGF has acquired over the years and how we can make most of it the most of it. Thank you.

Jovan Kurbalija:
Thank you. Thank you. Sorina, we are working on, with Sorina’s help, on the AI cliché detector, which will immediately detect clichés in any speeches, and sort of that would be interesting. We have to keep it a bit discreet because then people could be annoyed, oh, I’m telling clichés, like myself, when Sorina detects clichés in my writings, you feel like uneasy. We will conclude this intro with Wim. Wim, you have been involved with, let’s say, knowledge aspect of AI as expert consultants, participants in the MAG, putting different hats. And what’s your take on this huge knowledge base, which was described by all our discussant, and possibility of tapping it, need to tap it, how to do it?

Wim Degezelle:
Well, thank you. Just to clarify, well, I have been involved in a number of intersessional activities, and I think they go back on the initiative by Marcus, really to make a first step. An important step, I think, that was also from having discussions on topics at IGF, to having discussions that start in the months before IGF, and try to come up with already a tangible output, a tangible report. And I think that’s an important step already in the whole context, trying to codify and bring knowledge together. But now what we, and what my experience is, is we are now a step further, and the discussions are way more focused, but they’re still going on in different, I hesitate the word silos, that has a whole different bunch of meanings in the context of IGF. But just, we had, for example, this morning, a policy network on internet fragmentation. And one of the messages we say, it’s important that stakeholders work together and discuss this together, because there are different views. But at the same moment, I’m aware, and I looked at the agenda too, that there were 10 other workshops that are talking about the same topic. And in some workshops have been the days before, but they are actually saying exactly the same, but with different words. They come up with categories, they come up with this message from, we have to work together, we have to discuss together, but they just formulate it different. And it would be nice to combine these. And then coming back to the use of AI and use of technologies, if we, if I, or if we look at the schedule, it’s impossible to do that, even or even afterwards, or even making the links to last year. And I was just checking the tool that analyzed what I have been saying this morning. And I must say, I didn’t read the text, but the fact that this tool took from the five or 10 minutes that I was talking and divided that up into arguments, three or four different arguments, and automatically labels that from these or key topics. And then I see it also adds which SDGs could be linked or are linked to what I just have said. I think that’s already something wonderful. What I am, I think, missing or what would be great, but I think that was the graph you showed earlier, if this would also do the next step and then help with comparing and linking what is being said in other sessions, where you actually at the end of the week and say, well, we have had five sessions that maybe, I don’t know if the tool would be able to do that or if technology is to be, is able to bringing that fine tuning, but at least say they were talking about the same, go and check whether the new ones actually is just new ones or if they are talking about something different. So I think that there are huge opportunities there.

Jovan Kurbalija:
Thank you. Thank you, Wim. Well, as a matter of fact, it exists. We are fine tuning. As you said, this is approximation. And what is the beauty in this reporting system, which our colleagues may show again and what Wim was referring to, is that you’re always fine tuning with the experts. As Sorina said, sometimes we are underwhelmed with the quality. But when you correct, the AI system is learning how to do it in the next iteration. And as you can, what Wim was referring to is basically this type of, if you can just display quickly this, yes, this report from the session that you can use where you have main points from discussion done by experts and AI, provided by AI, by fine tune by experts. Then you have knowledge graph, which I said, where you have blue points are about topics and the white points are about speakers. And that’s probably the way if you put 10 sessions about fragmentation related issues, it can cross reference and say, hey, this was discussion in the session which Wim moderated and the next session that can help even visually. And then you have this, obviously, narrative report, which is what was also interesting. And I just invite you to look into this. At the bottom, you have for each session what was said, speed of speaking. We’ll have the fastest speaker at the IGF, which I’m getting since time is running out. A length of speech, we’ll have the shortest and longest speech at the IGF, speech time. And you have a report for per speaker. Therefore, you can see if what was said is basically useful, useful for discussion.

Wim Degezelle:
No. And what I referred to, if you click for more, it’s exactly the point I was making, that you have the different arguments split out and automatically linked to this topic. Well, and linked to topics. And I think that is a way you can compare with what is being said in other sessions.

Jovan Kurbalija:
Thank you. Well, I guess this is all from us, except if my fellow panelists do not want to say more. Anja, your body language?

Anja Gengo:
I am so impressed by this, looking into the speech length, speech speed and so on. And I’m very excited to see who wins this mini competition here. I don’t think you have me there, but I think I’ll be among the first five for sure. That’s speed, yes, the speed, but very interesting. And I think this is very useful for the IGF long term.

Jovan Kurbalija:
We may have even award for the fastest speaker at the IGF and slowest.

Markus Kummer:
If I may add a word, I mean, I did not talk about AI, but we were aware, of course, of the knowledge that was all. And we published it in book form the first years, you know, a summary of all that was said. But who reads a book and a summary? And here, this is an amazing tool. I do remember back in 2011, in the Nairobi IGF, I was on a panel, the main session, and Vint Cerf then said, pointed out that this immense data accumulated. And he said, there is a need for data mining. And now we are a little bit late, but this is precisely that. And it is very impressive indeed and a fantastic tool. Thanks.

Jovan Kurbalija:
I remember that session when the transcriber or automatic system was putting win surf instead of windsurf. And then we have to be careful because AI can misspell. But I can recall that point. Thank you. Any comments? I think the preferred point will be given to the person who read the last three reports. Good friend and colleague. And it’s so great to see you, a bit of a legendary member of the IGF community.

Audience:
Thank you, Jovan, and thank you for the wonderful panel. I would just like to commend the fact that the IGF became a knowledge base for us. Really, the beauty about it was because it was an independent platform that allows all stakeholders on equal footage to participate and contribute and talk about policy and also participate in capacity building and learning. The fact that it is a non-outcome event gave it more soft power to influence all Internet-related organizations, all stakeholders. We were disagreeing. We agreed. We reached a consensus and that consensus flew to other organizations. With time, it became a knowledge base. And I think it’s not only a knowledge base, it’s also a soft power or a soft force that influenced all related Internet governance organizations. And we’re blessed with resources from all over the world that we wouldn’t have the chance to know them if we didn’t participate in the IGF, like the wonderful panel that we see here from all over. So, these are all opportunities that have been given to us by the IGF, which someone at the time of those thought that it will not even continue to more than five years. And now we are 20 years and we’re looking for 20 years more, hopefully. So, hopefully. And actually, it became a model that has been copied into other dimensions. So, that was the beauty of the IGF. Another idea, since you talked about AI and clichés, maybe you can use the narrative AI to see how the IGF has emerged and evolved over the 20 years and how it can move to the next 20 years.

Jovan Kurbalija:
Well, we won’t ask AI, we will ask you to write this article because you are the living legend of the AI and of the IGF. I think if I could buy it, it would be better. Okay, okay. Thank you. Well, those of you who are on ChargePT, you may ask ChargePT what it will, how ChargePT would answer El-Ghuzain’s questions on this issue. Well, if you don’t have any other comments, questions, it was also a short and sweet session. We didn’t take too much of your time. We heard many interesting ideas. We had heard from history, through Anja’s secretariat perspective, from Serena’s no-cliché perspective, to Wim’s perspective of giving a concrete example of the reporting, as you said, giving a concrete example of the reporting as it is happening. And, well, that’s concluding a statement on the question of rich knowledge, not only codified in the sessions, but also in the way how IGF has been developing, performing, and developing some sort of tacit culture and understanding of thousands of people getting together and generating some new knowledge, new, sometimes, ethics, new respect, new understanding. And we shouldn’t forget it. We don’t live, unfortunately, in a society worldwide which cherishes respect and for different views. And the predominant view is that there are two views, my view and wrong view. And that’s how the world is, unfortunately, developing. But IGF has been fostering listening culture, engagement, respect for the others’ opinions. And I think, for me personally, it has been probably the first achievement, IGF. And we take this idea to use AI and human expertise, maybe to do another book on the AI and share with younger generations who should take it for the next 20 years. Thank you very much.